Breaking the Trend

During last week’s class presentations, there were a couple of moments that really broke the norm for classroom interactions; this blog post will talk about them a bit. The first was when Andrew was discussing the correlations between Pythagoreans and music. He sought to find that music had impacted the Pythagoreans; however, after thorough research he came up empty. I think that it takes some guts to admit that you failed to confirm your original hypothesis. These types of presentations happen all to infrequently. In fact, I think that one can learn so much about the process of intellectual inquiry from hearing the stories of others’ failed research. Another interesting moment in class is when Tessa was recounting one of the quotes from the Kitty Genovese case. Knowing a quote from memory is nothing unordinary, but this quote happened to include the f-word within the quote. When Tessa said the word without censoring it, I could see the class collectively squirm. It was actually quite funny. From a moral perspective, including the f-word within a quote in an intellectual setting is not a problem at all (in my opinion). From a realistic perspective, all college students have heard the word before (likely with great frequency) and wouldn’t be surprised to hear that word in almost any other context. However, in the classroom it still caught almost everyone off guard. I am kind of happy that Tessa dropped the bomb; it made class a lot more interesting and did actually supplement her presentation.

Foundationalism

I found Rowan’s presentation on foundationalism to be very thought provoking (if my plethora of questions didn’t already make that quite obvious). I tend to like the idea that there should be a central idea that one relies on for many of one’s thoughts. Two philosophers that I think really add to this conversation are Descartes and Nicolas Wolterstorff. Descartes provides a really compelling argument for existence through his idea that he cannot doubt that he doubts. He then follows this up with his argument that God cannot be a deceiver; thus we must be observing what truly exists. I feel like this argument would provide a pretty good foundation for anyone who believes in God. Wolterstorff provides another interesting take on the foundationalism discussion. He defines what he calls “controlling beliefs.” These are beliefs that a person accepts as true and that shape the rest of his or her discovery of knowledge. That we exist and properly perceive things would probably qualify as a controlling belief. Personally, I normally don’t spend too much time on these problems out of practicality. I cannot prove that I perceive what actually exists, but I do know that my life is a lot happier if I believe that I can perceive things. I also see no benefit to skepticism, other than as an intellectual exercise. This is the same idea that I apply to free will. I cannot prove that I have free will, but I do know that it feels like I have free will. I choose to believe in free will since I can see no practical benefit to denying it.

Class Discussions

I am writing in response to Thursday’s class discussion. Although the class discussion was focused on the piece “The disparity between intellect and character.” However, the discussion quickly turned to peoples’ opinions on Baylor’s development of the whole person while in college. This was actually one of the more interesting classes I have had in college and I was a little bit disappointed when we transitioned over to Jeopardy. People seemed really open to talking about their perspectives, some of which were very personal and some of which were just about Baylor in general. As the student regent, I am always quick to defend the decisions that Baylor makes as I can see all of the hard work that goes into them. So as we began the discussion I was a little caught off guard to hear some of the negative thoughts. However, I actually ended up really appreciating the discussion. I think that it is helpful for me to hear a wide variety of student opinions as I try and impact the board and administration to serve students more effectively. I also think that the quality of that discussion was driven by the interactive format of the class. Very few classes that I have been a part of have grown comfortable enough with each other to have that quality of discussion. It also helps that Dr. Schultz calls on people while we are in class. That everyone is “forced” to participate makes the environment better for the whole class.

Economics and Philosophy

This is the first time that I have ever written a paper on an ancient philosopher. At first it was kind of an intimidating experience. It seemed like everyone else in the class had an idea for their papers very early. I suspect that experiences in great texts courses would be very helpful along those lines. That being said, I am really happy with the topic I have selected. I don’t have very much to say about Aristotle when he is considered on his own that someone else hasn’t already said. However, I do have a background in economics that most people who study Aristotle don’t have. My paper applies Economics to Aristotle, and I have come to be fairly proud of that structure of analysis. What I really appreciate about these two specific fields is that they synergize so effectively. When I say that most everyone pauses…they see economics and philosophy as completely unrelated. However, economics gives me a framework for analyzing cause and effect in decision-making. I can see how to make decisions to reach different outcomes. It does not give me a good framework for determining which of those outcomes is best. That is where philosophy comes into play. Philosophy gives me a way to look at possible outcomes and determine which one is best, but doesn’t help me know (in most cases) how to get to that outcome. In this way, I think that the two fields work very well together.

Friendship and Self-Sufficiency

In the final chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle provides the ultimate conclusion to his development of the eudaimonistic life. He says that it is a life of contemplation because (among other things) contemplation leads to the purest form of self-sufficiency. I have always appreciated Aristotelian self-sufficiency and would like to talk a little bit about how that might relate to the relationships from the previous chapter. One of my favorite sermonettes ever came during what is called Friday morning fellowship, a Bible study for professionals that meets in downtown Chicago every week. The leader spoke of the ideal model for a marriage. He said that people too often look at their spouse as the person who completes them. However, said the speaker, the best marriages are those that unite two completely self-sufficient and independent people. For it is only when someone is independent that he or she can really serve and love his or her spouse. I think that these thoughts really apply to Aristotle’s viewpoints on the life of contemplation and friendship. One can best reach the top-tier of friendship once he or she has already become an independent person and has more to give to their friend. This obviously applies to more than just marriage, but to all friendship in general. Finally, I really like how Aristotle integrates relaxation into his ideal life structure. One has to relax so that he can be better rested when he actually needs the energy. However, relaxation is not an end, but rather something that help achieve another end. It would be interesting if Aristotle would apply relaxation to relationships—AKA would relationships be better if people took occasional breaks?

Response to Dr. Carron's Lecture

I am writing a reflection on the class from this last Thursday where Dr. Paul Carron discussed with the class Aristotle’s views on friendship. This was a particularly important reading for my own life right now as I am working hard on building relationships with the people around me. For the last year, I have been the student regent at Baylor. This has been the best experience of my life, but I have come to realize that I have not invested enough of my time in my relationships because of my increased busyness. What I really appreciate is how Aristotle speaks of how relationships add meaning to life. Dr. Carron did a really great job of working through the different types of relationships. I also really appreciated how he tied our discussion of Aristotle into biblical truths. Specifically, Matt. 22: 39 says, “’Love your neighbor as yourself.’” Christ says that this is the second greatest commandment of all. We are made to have relationships. Similarly, relationships are what bring the value and substance to our lives. Aristotle gives one of the best structures for a relationship that I have heard with his friends of goodness. I think it is very important to look at all of one’s friendships and determine if they are friends of utility, pleasure, or goodness. It is not that friends of utility or pleasure are bad. But rather that we must actively seek to move as many of our friendships as possible to the level of being friends of goodness.

Justice

One of my college visits to Baylor presented me with the opportunity to apply for a faculty scholarship. The application included a essay responding to the prompt “what question would you like to answer during your time at Baylor?” In what I still consider the essay of which I am most proud, I responded that I would seek to answer the question: “What is true justice?” For this reason I have always loved the fifth chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle offers many important contributions to the concept of justice, but one that I would like to focus on in particular is the concept of arithmetic vs. proportional justice. There must be, argues Aristotle, a balance between the amount of goods and honor that each individual in the polis receives. However, Aristotle goes beyond the simple notion that each individual should receive the same amount of these two critical goods—that being arithmetic equality. Rather, Aristotle suggests that this mundane form of equality is similarly unpalatable as some people receiving more than they deserve. A better solution is referred to as proportional justice, one where each individual receives an amount of goods and honor proportional to their inherent contributions to society. I appreciate that Aristotle recognizes this subtlety within the concept of justice. It is not just for each person to receive the same amount of honor. Rather justice mandates, in my opinion, that those who work for others receive proportionately more honor; it also mandates that those who produce more for society should receive proportionately more goods. This concept of justice lends itself to the free market system that is prevalent in today’s modernized societies and our own country. As a final note, it is imperative to consider that proportional justice requires a balance that people receive some meaningful amount of goods and honor, even if it is proportionately less than the amount received by others.

Impactual Ethics

The first time I read the Nicomachean Ethics—fall semester of my sophomore year—it changed my life. I had never really found a compelling set of ethical doctrines outside of my Christian upbringing. This is not to say that Christian ethics are incomplete, rather Aristotle provides a rational depth to my goal of living for Christ. In some ways, I am sympathetic toward Thomist viewpoints on ethics. Among the beginning of the Ethics most impactful points are Aristotle’s suggestions on how to find the mean and his function argument. Once Aristotle has established the principle of the golden mean, he suggests that one should err toward deficiency or excess based on one’s own tendencies. If I am prone to vanity, then I should err on the side of being small-souled in my search for becoming magnanimous. I find this articulation helpful in my own life (the previous example being accurate to my own tendencies.) Another example is that I work very proactively to give away as much money as I can because I fear that I may become greedy or money loving someday. I have come to gain pleasure from generosity more-and-more over time as giving has become habituated. Aristotle also very clearly states his function argument in the first couple books of the Ethics. I like to take mankind’s function a step further by saying that man’s primary, and unique, function is its ability to honor God. Thus, honoring God becomes man’s primary function and the ultimate objective in life.

Diotima's Speech and Aristotle's Ethics

I actually had already read books one and two of Aristotle’s Ethics and begun crafting my blog response when I saw the update on blackboard that I was, in fact, reading the wrong thing! However, refreshing my memory of Aristotle actually made the latter half of the Symposium a much more interesting read. I had only ever read the Ethics as a stand-alone piece; Aristotle’s reliance on Plato was clear from today’s readings. First off, in Socrates’ retelling of Diotima’s speech there is a clear assumption that living and acting well, Eudaimonia, is the only appropriate underlying good in life. Through the development of the five speeches leading up to Socrates’ speech, we have been able to trace the fact that love leads to all of the other virtues. In other words, love is the center of the living and acting well. We love, explains Diotima, things that are lovable. There is always an object of our affections. As we find this object—something beautiful—we should “[behold] beauty with the eye of the mind.” This is directly comparable to Aristotle’s life of contemplation that he describes at length in his Ethics. In fact, Another relationship between the two texts can be seen when Socrates/Diotima describes the nature of beauty. Socrates originally asserts to Diotima that if something is not fair it must necessarily be foul. Diotima refutes that assertion and claims that love can be a mean between good and evil, foul and fair. In order for a mean to exist, there must be a “gray area,” or a gradient between two opposite ideas. This clearly expresses a basis for Aristotle’s theory of the golden mean.

The five love speeches

Plato’s Symposium centrally features a series of solilioquies about the nature of love. All five of the men speaking recognize the importance of love, sing its praises, and attempt to relate it to human experiences. However, each of the men takes a unique approach to the definition. In the end, the men all build upon one another’s words do touch on many of the components of love in ancient Greece. The first speech is given by Phaedrus who immediately relates love to a god. He says that love is among the first of the gods and, consequently, not as much is known of his history. However, the god of love can still inspire and be seen in the lover/beloved relationship. Speaking next, Pausanias distinguishes between two types of love: that of Aphrodite and that of Dione. Where Phaedrus only recognized the love from the soul—that of Aphrodite—a bodily love is also present in human beings. Eryximachus speaks third. He talks about the inseparable nature of the two types of love and how they are often applied to the same objects, music for example. Aristophanes carries this concept even further saying that we (humans) are only half of what we were created to be and that love seeks to reunite us with our other halves. Although the love of Aphrodite is more important in this process, both loves are necessary. In this way, Aristophanes expands the definition to include love as an end for mankind. Finally, Agathon builds off of all four of the previous speeches. He says that if love is a bimodal and can serve as an end then it is something we should seek to praise before we think of ourselves. For the man who has mastered love, says Agathon, will be happy. Furthermore, he suggests that all of the other virtues flow from love—that love is the most central virtue.

A Matrix Reloaded and Philosophy

The Matrix Reloaded Blog A few weeks back the movie The Matrix Reloaded came up during our class discussion of Democritus. The opportunity was given to watch the movie and write a blog post about it. I actually found it to be a very interesting movie—ill defined fighting parameters and decade-old special effects aside. There were some clear tie-ins to Democritus, but also some very interesting revalations from a character called the Oracle on free will. In the matrix, people’s senses grossly deceive them as to the underlying nature of reality. They feel that they are living in the late 90’s in America, whereas they are really being fed out of test tubes years and years later. Consistent with Democritus, sensory perception gives very little indication of the true state of reality. However, the movie allows the person to step quite readily outside of the matrix (take the blue pill style). I do not feel that Democritus saw in humans such ability. Not only can humans come outside and know the matrix, but near the end of this second movie Neo, the protagonist, finds the source of the matrix. In other words he finds the fundamental nature of the world. I find this also inconsistent the Democritus. At one point, a character called the oracle tells the main character that she knows a decision that he will make. Nero responds with an answer that effectively asks if he is then making a decision at all. She responds that he has already made the decision. This leads to a number of interesting observations. One, this could lead to a system where everyone truly makes all decisions before they play out. Thus they have really made a decision and someone—namely God—could still know what they have chosen before they act out that decision. Also, the oracle says that the point of living out the decision is to find out why you made that decision, not to make the decision itself. This could lend an interesting answer to a free-will advocate.

Protagoras Reading II Taylor Hoogendoorn 3.6.14 Plato’s Protagoras pits Socrates against the sophist Protagoras in a series of debates. Today’s reading dealt with the debate over whether or not virtue can be taught, but resolved itself into a bit of a meta-analysis on how arguments should be structured. Protagoras initially asserts that one of the primary points of value in the sophists’ work is their ability to teach virtue and citizenship throughout their work. Socrates disagrees. He winds Protagoras through an argument in which Socrates draws distinctions and contradictions between the fulfillments of a number of different virtues in an effort to make them appear un-teachable. In my prior coursework, I have found virtues to not be strictly teachable. However, the best way to learn virtue is to replicate the actions of another person. So although there is no “teaching” required for a student to become virtuous, the teacher can serve as an example of virtuous living. Additionally, I agree with Protagoras’ argument that one can provide a series of punishments and incentives that push a person toward a virtuous life. I, again, would not consider this to be a strict form of teaching, as there is no direct knowledge being conferred, but it is certainly a way that one person can make another a better, more virtuous citizen. At the end of the discussion, Socrates becomes frustrated with how long Protagoras’ arguments have become. He says that one must speak louder when talking to a deaf man, so one must also speak in shorter speeches to a forgetful man. The ultimate point, which I espouse, is that one has to adapt the form of one’s arguments to the audience.

Hippias Research Taylor Hoogendoorn 2.22.14 Dr. Schultz, I have consulted a number of sources regarding Hippas, a Sophist about whom our reader provides very limited information and even fewer aphorisms. Sources consulted are listed below, although I will more formally cite them in my official bibliography: 1) Curd Reader 2) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 3) Plato's Hippias Minor 4) "The Lesser Hippias" by Theodore de Laguna, a journal article 5) "On the authenticity of Hippias major" by Grube, a journal article 6) "The Sophists" by WKC Guthrie, a book 7) "The Greek Sophists" by Dillon and Gergle, a book 8) "The Sophists: an Introduction" by Patricia O'Grady, a book 9) "The Sophistic Movement" by Kerferd, a book Of note is the fact that almost all of my thoughts on Hippias derive from my readings of these secondary sources. Curd just didn't provide much information on Hippias beyond grounds for rampant speculation. After consulting these sources, I have determined to spend some time with the class discussing some of the following points: 1) I would like to give background on Hippias, and possibly brief background on the Sophists 1a)I would also like to talk about Plato's disregard for Hippias and the lens through which we must read Plato's criticism 1b)I would like to talk about Hippias's starting of the study of the history of Philosophy. Although I have not found very much tangible information on this topic, it seems downright negligent to not mention this point in a course on the history of philosophy 2) I would like to mention briefly the controversy surrounding the validity of Plato's Hippias Major and give a brief outline of that text 3) I would like to discuss briefly the content of Hippias Minor, possibly an interactive activity 4) I would like to talk about Hippias's geometric discovery, the Quadratrix, and how it may be significant to the three major geometric problems questioned by the ancient world. 5) Finally, I would like to talk about Hippias brief mention of legal thoery in the second aphorism from Curd. It seems that Hippias has a number of interesting points. The first is his skepticism toward mannmade laws and reliance on or adherence with the natural law. There are some fairly interesting ties I can make between this point and a couple of other legal and political concepts that I have been studying in other classes. This discussion would be tangential to Hippias actual writings, but would be both an interesting and relevant way to teach the class. With your permission, I will cite Thomas Sowell's "A conflict of Visions" and talk about how that may tie into Hippias's legal philosophy. This will likely be the most extended and interesting portion of my presentation. There was indication that a post of this nature would count as a blog entry; if so, would you please confirm that fact in the comments. Thanks! Taylor

Taylor Hoogendoorn

Leucippus & Democritus

2.20.14

            Among my favorite books is A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. When I first read this book—humorously on the way to Baylor for freshman orientation—my mom was skeptical of my reading it due to Hawking’s intensely professed atheism. I saw the book in the opposite light; it helped me to realize the awesomeness of creation.

            Many philosophers speculate as to the underlying composition of nature. One of my favorite exercises is to compare their thoughts to my rudimentary understanding of modern science. Although Leibniz does the best job of any philosopher I’ve read, Democritus also does an admirable job. He does a good job of surmising an atomistic structure. Although modern science has broken “atoms” into many smaller parts and ultimately equated mass to energy, an atomistic framework is still used in many forms of analysis. I also really think that he hits the nail on the head with his idea of void. For Leucippus and Democritus, the void allows atoms to freely move about according to some form of reason. Empty space in modern science serves a similar purpose, as it is filled with a variety of forces that pull and push atoms to empty space.

            The two atomists also give a pretty compelling view of the nature of iron and lead. They are mostly correct when they relate the relative weights of the two materials to how tightly packed they are, density in modern terminology. They also make a strong observation as to why iron is harder than lead. It has to do with the internal structure of the material and how it bonds. It is always fun to see rational though pre-empt modern scientific discovery.

Taylor Hoogendoorn

Plato  

2.18.14

            The Phaedo by Plato was a very interesting read. In it, he tries to explain his quest for the nature of causality to Cebes, evidently one of his followers.  He begins with a very interesting analysis of the nature of the numbers one and two. He says that when you put two groups of one thing together they become two things, yet when you take one group and divide it into two parts, it also becomes two things. From this analysis, he determines that causality must be something that we assign in our minds, rather than something that is absolute. This is, in many respects, a funny argument to me as one could view a single thing, say a square, as two things at any point in time. In other words, although it is true that a square becomes two things when it is split into two right triangles, it can also be viewed as two right triangles when it is arranged as a square. There is no true creation or demolition of a thing when you move around the pieces.

            One idea that really stood out to me was Plato’s suggestion that you have to choose one rule that is most important to you and then discard those things that contradict that rule. This has interesting ties into Reformed Theology. In Reformed Theology, God’s omnipotence is viewed as the central tenet of the faith. Other rules and theories must conform to this underlying principle. I think that Plato really hits the nail on the head with his “most important rule” suggestion.

Parmenides of Elea

2.3.14

            A substantial majority of the provided excerpts from Parmenides work revolves around his epistemological views. There are a couple of overarching themes that grow clear as one reads his work—namely that there exists an absolute truth and that sensory perceptions are of limited value.

            Parmenides clearly advocates for a single, unchanging truth. He really harps on the concept that what-is is and what-is-not is not. Although this is a rather confusing use of language, I think he is taking a very similar approach to that which Descartes used 2 millennia later. One must move from the central concept of thought and existence and build his or her philosophical framework from this supposition.

            Along with this über-rational view of knowledge, Parmenides is very skeptical of sensory perception. He says, “do not let…habit compel you along this route [of inquiry].” On should not allow perceptions to cloud the purer form of reasoning. Along with this notion, Parmenides is very skeptical of what others tell him. Information given by others falls into the camp of perceptions, not pure reasoning. The major risk, of course, with any of these methods of thought is that one will follow a path towards becoming an absurdist or Nihilist. Although I do not think that Parmenides falls into either of these camps, I am a little skeptical of his writing.

Heraclitus     

1.28.14

            The aphorisms provided for Heraclitus were very difficult to follow. In fact, I read through the entire thing and still felt that I had gained very little insight into his viewpoints. On the second reading, one underlying theme really struck me—namely how assertive Heraclitus is about absolute truth. He talks about how “what is wise is set apart from all.”

When Heraclitus creates this system of logos, he is careful to emphasize how unknowable the full picture is. There are more implicit phrases that he uses: “Nature loves to hide.” Yet there are also more explicit examples: “Eyes and ears are bad witnesses to people if they have barbarian souls.”

Man’s goal, however, seems to be “right thinking.” I would interpret this as an understanding of the absolute truth, or an ability to see it aside from inherent biases. I can see a number of similarities between these ideas and Plato’s Allegory Of the Cave. However, the two visions differ when Heraclitus says, “You would not discover the limits of the soul although you have travelled every road.” This is a dangerous forum to interpret Plato without training, but I have always understood that the cave dweller was able to reach a place of full understanding once he saw the sun. If so, then the attainability of perfect understanding seems to be a substantial difference between the two views.